You think the other test was difficult? (no pun intended) Well, try this:

One audio file was sent to the SSL FX G384 compressor (serial number below 200 = a good one) via Apogee DA-16X and AD-16X.

The next just through the Apogee DA-16X and AD-16X (in and outs cross-patched) and then through the Waves SSL stereo compressor.

And the third through the Apogee's and then URS 1980.

All converters clocked by BigBen. 44.1kHz/24bit.

UV22HR 16 bit has been used after the processing on the final files to reduce the download to 16 bit.

I tried to match all compressors as closely as possible so I got the best phase cancellation when phase-reversing one file.

Even with the same settings it was obvious that the compression on all units is slightly different, no matter how hard I tried. (You can import the files and phase reverse one to hear the difference yourself)

The settings I used were:

Ratio 4, Attack 10ms, release 0.3, the gain reduction hitting 4db.

For the DrumsOnly files:

Ratio 4, Attack 3ms, release 0.3, gain reduction hitting 8db. (for this test to hear them working!)

Again, I tried to match the gain reduction and level so I got the best phase cancellation. (I didn't pay any attention to what the meters ate showing because that can be misleading)

Now tell us what you think.

Which file is what? What do you like best?

I changed the order compared to the old test. So what was Test1 there doesn't mean it's Test1 again, but it could be......who knows....

The poll askes for what you like best, and not what do you think is the hardware.

If this test is doing your head in go over to the simple one:

https://gearspace.com/board/high-end/59002-waves-ssl-vs-ssl-fx-384-test.html

The results have been posted! Look further down the thread (page 3)....Don't want to post them here to spoil the fun....

On page 2 of the thread there are additional files if you are interested...and on page 4, thanks to Svein, there is an Impact compressor file.

The drums only:

DrumsOnly Test1 here has the same compressor as Test1 before. And so on....

if I had to pick, my prerference would be:

3 -> 2 -> 1

1&2 sounded pretty similar to me. Very punchy snares, but I thought 3 sounded truer to the original. Heck, what do I know.

I just did the blind test myself, and this time I really struggled. Yesterday I could easily and consistently pick the better sounding one, which always turned out to be the hardware.

Maybe it's just to early in the morning....

Different order here:

1 -> 3 -> 2

I dunno... 1 is the only one that feels right apart from the uncompressed version, 3 is bearable and 2 makes me feel uncomfortable...

Kai

I think and deduce (I have the Waves demo) that NewTest2 is the hardware, NewTest3 is the Waves plug in and NewTest1 is the URS 1980. I like NewTest2 the best as it has more spatial depth to it and it sounds more like a record. NewTest3 has a more open and s***** sound - it keeps the transients of the keyboards, percussion and bass line, but the kick and snare sound less natural than on NewTest2. NewTest1 is my least favourite. If my thoughts and deductions are correct maybe I should start saving for a hardware compressor. If I'm wrong I'd better shut up and play guitar.

Much harder to tell on this one....but i think

1. hardware
2. urs
3. waves

Oh yeah and i prefer no.1 (smoother when listening to the crash over the drum attacks)but it wasn't as immediately obvious as in the first test....

This was listening to drums only btw...

Strangely i prefer 3 when listening to the full mix
Still only listening on my laptop speakers though..

I liked 3, 2, and 1

3 Sounded a tad darker, which may be the Waves, but somehow it sounded a little better to me.

But I would have to say that 3 and 1 sounded very close.

This No.1 seems to be the last threads No.2, which I didn´t like - somehow muffeled release on snare attack.

No.2 and 3 are so close (apart from more highs in 2) it´s hard to tell which one I like better, but I choose No.3, feels more "analogue" or fundamental to me.

So I´d say:

1. Waves
2. URS
3. SSL

Totally wrong - so curious?!

Now I´m really confused, listened again at louder levels and would change as follows:

1. SSL
2. Waves
3. URS

At louder levels snare transients cut through more on 2 and 3 so I think they could be the plugs.

Still confused though...

My guess would be, on BOTH tests as I think you have made the same order (even though you say it might not be).

1. URS (snare transient really "rough" and has very little 'meat' to it)
2. SSL (smooth, least "squashed in a bad way")
3. Waves (quite close to nr 2 but the snare transient again comes trough as a "block" in stead of a smooth "slam!").

These are my uneducated guesses.

Cheers!
bManic

1>3>2 here

the other is dr.evil... downloading the drum files now. tried not to read too many other reviews so as not to influence my judgement.

ok, on a laptop again. #1 and #3 are so close it's ridiculous. #2 had more ambience so sounds like it's squashing a little harder/faster attack.

which do i like more? for more squashed sound, #2. for a more controlled sound, #1 or #3.

i hope #1 and #3 are waves/384. after listeing again, i guess i like #1 over #3 by a very slight margin.

now stop the torture and POST!!!!

Having listened to both tests (music w/ drums & drumsonly), I've come to this conclusion:

1. URS
2. SSL
3. Waves

2 always sounded better to me and 3 did sound closest to 2, but not as "controlled" (as raal said). This is evidenced especially in the highs.

On the whole mix: 3 > 1 > 2
On drums: 1 > 3 > 2

Overall 2 sounds the smoothest to me. A bit darker. But also more squashed with some pumping artefacts, so I've given it the lowest marks. Might have been higher if driven less.

On the whole mix: 3) sounds most transparent to me.
On drums: 1) has a nice bite and good separation between hits on drums. 3) a close second. The 2) snare sounds good but on the whole, again too squashed.

I have no idea what sounds are from which setup heh

The URS can't be that "bad" since people have different opinions on which it is...


ruudman

And that's EXACTLY the point, I think. We're coming to a junture where the lines are blurred somewhat. BUT what if these subtle differences are increased.....with more instances of these comps, on the individual channels? Just a thought.

Anyway, I'm very appreciative of theother's experiment, whatever the outcome. Thank you!

On the drums side:

I have to say i prefered the uncompressed file. It has more punch, and crispness.

The compressed drums sound drenched out to me.

3-2-1

But I too have to have to say on the drums only side I preffer the uncompressed file. This is strange....

Its not strange. Its when you compress dums together...the pumping effect is more apparent.


I prefer to compress single shots or maybe 2 elements at the most together.

Add Voxengo Marquis t3 mode to the test. It is modeled after SSL Bus comp schematic.

Drum only samples:

I have no clue what is what,

but i like number 2 most, the kick is nicer than in the other examples and the snare is punchy.

Number 1 has also a punchy snare, but the kick is not as cool as in number 2

Number 3 seems a bit boring and lifeless

pretty close too...
I liked : 3,2,1

You are right! After doing the blind test myself several times I picked the URS occasionally as my favourite. (I hadn't expected that)

All I can tell you at this stage is that the URS doesn't sound as close to the SSL hardware as the Waves. Not in terms of finding it better sounding but purley based on the compression characteristic. The attack, release, grab behaviour is just closer matched on the Waves to the hardware. Bu that doesn't mean it's going to sound more appealing....if you get my drift.

Of course but only because for the sake of this test I applied to much gain reduction, to hear the compressors working.

Good idea! I have it, really liked it and found it very SSL like when I tested it. I will add it soon....

Hi,

Not to be a dick...but what is the purpose of this test?


From everyone's responses(including your own) its clear that its best to have a bunch of tools to choose from at different times than just to rely on one.


Like when doing a drumsub as opposed to a mix buss etc.


Or are you looking to narrow it down to one?


Isn't the only way to really discover that is to do a full mix through each and come to a conclusion that way?

Again i was just curious.

thrill,

You are totally right. Having all three would give me more colors to paint. However, this is kinda fun. heh

Also, it's a sort of learning experience for a novice like me.

I guess that point is same with any Plug-in argument........ "what sounds more like the real deal"

Dunno which one is which, but I know which on I like...!

So, IMHO:

1. -> 1. Liked the bass alot - nicely glued together, the top seems a bit squashed and dark, but in a nice and crunchy way.

2. -> 2. Biggest 3D-sound, open in the high end. So-so in the bottom.

3. -> 3. Quite flat but nice and open in the high end.

...I would like to use no 1 and 2 in a mix, no 3 didn´t do for me.

Think this is a cool survey!